/image%2F1189270%2F20210814%2Fob_eecf7e_images.jpeg)
GREAT-BRITAIN – RWANDA : What if the trade in asylum seekers in Great Britain hid well-organized international crime?
By Emmanuel Habumuremyi
- State of play
- Great Britain or United Kingdom [1] :
In the history of the world, the United Kingdom distinguished itself in the trade of black slaves torn from their land, Africa; he was the greatest colonizer of the countries of Africa and Asia; without forgetting the conquest of North America and the islands of the world's oceans that he claimed for himself.
The United Kingdom is today an economic, political, military superpower... It is the most influential permanent member of the UN Security Council with the United States and France.
The United Kingdom, with its Allies, is the greatest defender of Human Rights and Democracy in the world!!!
-
- Rwanda :
The smallest country in Africa with 26,338 km2 , totally landlocked and more than 70% rural (active population dependent on working the land!). Rwanda with its 13,461,888 (2021) inhabitants is the most densely populated country in Africa (with more than 500 inhabitants per km2)!
Rwanda is the country in Africa with the largest number of refugees – more than 3 million – scattered in countries around the world. - The United Kingdom could give the number of Rwandan refugees welcomed and to be welcomed on its territory!
All these data place Rwanda among the poorest countries in the world (inflated GNP/inhabitant = 939 dol USA in 2022). Politically, Rwanda is the most unstable country in Africa because, with the current Regime, human rights and democracy have been buried since 1994.
Worse ! All reports from the UN and human rights bodies around the world affirm that the current political regime is responsible for insecurity and crimes, including genocides, in Central Africa (Rwanda, Burundi, DRC , Uganda).
- Expelling UK asylum seekers to Rwanda: a trade or another crime against humanity?
The heated debate which, for almost a year, has agitated the institutions of Great Britain, including Parliament and the Supreme Court, which judged the sending to Rwanda of refugees turned back from England, to be illegal and illegitimate, questions and continues to surprise many observers. . And for good reason ! Not only that, between the ruling Party and the Opposition Party, a compromise seems impossible to find. More seriously, the Judge of the Supreme Court who was seized to resolve the dispute indicated that the deal which governs the partnership between England and the power of Kigali on the project of settling in Rwanda of refugees returned from England, contains clauses which, if made public, would compromise Britain's image in terms of international cooperation. What is really behind this deal?
As if that were not enough, we learned, on January 17, 2024, President Kagame [2], at the World Economic Forum in Davos (Switzerland), declared to the press that Rwanda is willing to repay 240 million pounds sterling (304.8 million USD) paid by England as part of the project to settle in Rwanda asylum-seeking refugees turned back from England. Six months ago, the figure put forward for this project was £140 million. Why within six months did the cost of the said project increase by £100 million while the operation was frozen? This question raises so many others including these:
Why is it Rwanda, a small country, poor, landlocked, overpopulated (more than 1,000 inhabitants per km2 on habitable surface area) and where human rights are, of public knowledge, violated..., which was chosen by England for such a project?
Why did the British government rush to disburse the full amount for such a sensitive and controversial project? Everyone is aware that even for classic bi- and/or multilateral cooperation programs, disbursement is done in successive installments and step by step. How can we understand these incredible actions surrounding this project to settle refugees returned from England in Rwanda?
Obviously, there are things that are not clear in this deal. And if the cost of the said project, currently estimated at 240 million Pounds Sterling which has increased by 100 million Pounds Sterling in six months, while the project was blocked were, in fact, only funds intended to finance the M23/RDF war with a view to annexing the two provinces of the DRC (North and South Kivu), in order to exploit strategic minerals there and, of course, to settle refugees pushed back from Europe there since there was no There is no space in Rwanda. A priori, everything seems to hold in this hypothesis.
Looking at it closely, we quickly realize that the plan to send refugees from England to Rwanda is only a pretext, a sham and a scarecrow to fool the world. entire. The real issues lie elsewhere: the pillaging, via Rwanda, of highly strategic minerals found in the east of the DRC. On this point, everyone is aware that the financial lobbies (probably having set up their headquarters in London thanks to the intermediary of former Prime Minister Tony BLAIR, Kagame's most influential special advisor) are very involved in this deal, notably via the financing of repeated wars, waged by proxy for more than ten years by the M23/RDF.
No one is also unaware that it is these same financial lobbies which guarantee the right to impunity, media, diplomatic, political and financial coverage to the regime of super President Kagame of Rwanda, via the governments, mainly European, which are subservient to them. Otherwise, how can we justify why, accused of invading the neighboring territory of the DRC via the M23/RDF and on the basis of the evidence provided by UN experts, Rwanda has, until this date, been neither worried, nor received any sanction from the said international community which is, as we know, under the control of well-identified Western countries?
The answer to this question is very simple. Kagame's Rwanda would only be a common mercenary, a useful idiot and a criminal state mandated for this dirty work. The real sponsors of the pillaging, via Rwanda, of the DRC's strategic minerals located in the east of the DRC are found elsewhere: companies and financial lobbies, mostly Western. To finance their criminal activities in the DRC, the latter needed a solid alibi in the form of a visible project: the return to Rwanda of refugees turned back from England. They also needed a channel and a traceable path for the transfer of money intended to finance the criminal activities of the M23/RDF. The war that these terrorists - under different names - have been waging in the EAST of the DRC for years has a cost. War is expensive!!!
This justifies how and why the disbursement of the amount intended for the supposed project of sending refugees to Rwanda has, for six months, increased by 100 million Pounds Sterling while the project is blocked. The rest is just a big joke!
In short and all things considered, the supposed settlement project in Rwanda of refugees seeking asylum in England seems to be nothing more than a pretext which was cleverly orchestrated with the ulterior aim of finding a legal path and an acceptable channel for the transfer of funds (currently estimated at 240 million Pounds Sterling) intended to finance the war led by the M23/RDF in the province of North Kivu. Incidentally, the annexation by Rwanda (a small country, overpopulated, poor, landlocked and politically unstable) of vast territories in the South and North Kivu Provinces, would have served to transfer unwanted refugees turned back from England and other European countries. And let us emphasize in passing that the current asylum seekers whom Europe wants to get rid of and throw them like trash in Central Africa, are initially citizens of formerly respectable countries that the civilized, super-powerful and super-developed West has decided to destroy in order to better plunder their wealth.
- The Rwandan people remain the biggest losers in this deal.
The geopolitical and geostrategic fault, immense, unforgivable and inconceivable on the part of the Government of Paul Kagame in Rwanda, is to have accepted to be the pawn of foreign criminals (mostly Westerners) in the criminal project of massacre of populations killed by million, destabilization of a neighboring country, pillage of its resources and attempted annexation, by force, of two provinces of the DRC. This is high treason and horrible criminality, unlike any other, on the part of a country whose survival depends on its neighbors. Do the objectives sought in this macabre project, including the expected dividends (sharing of strategic minerals found in the two coveted provinces of the DRC), justify the crimes committed? Certainly not! Except for crazy and sociopathic individuals who work with old files, those from the 2000s.
Fortunately for the DRC, the war in Ukraine, the awakening of conscience via social networks and the rise in power of the BRICS [3] have disrupted this macabre plan which, it seems, Mr Tony Blair and his mafia friends are said to be the project managers! These criminals who pass themselves off as civilized people! It remains to be seen how Kigali will be able to reimburse the 304 million US dollars squandered in this horrible crime.
Probably a credit of 305 million USD will soon be granted to Rwanda by the World Bank to reimburse the financial lobbies - they never lose - who are behind this war doomed to failure because the Congolese have woken up. As for the poor Rwandans, they will have to pay this debt while the country's debt rate is around 90% of its GDP. So it is with the puppet leaders, mercenaries and useful idiots of foreign bandits!
A word to the wise, hello!
Emmanuel HABUMUREMYI
Du même auteur :
https://www.echosdafrique.com/20230730-rwanda-commemorating-the-genocide-or-admitting-failure
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Le terme de Royaume-Uni (angl. United Kingdom) désigne l'ensemble des territoires du pays (243 610 km²), alors que la Grande-Bretagne comprend les trois « provinces historiques » de l’île de Grande-Bretagne (229 850 km²) que sont l'Angleterre (England) avec 130 279 km², le pays de Galles (Wales) avec 20 279 km² et l'Écosse (Scotland) avec 78 782 km², ainsi que l'Irlande du Nord (Ulster) avec 14 130 km².
[2] Le Général des Généraux Paul Kagame, Président de la République du Rwanda, est un Tutsi du clan des Abega, Chrétien catholique, marié et père de famille. Il est à la tête d’une organisation politico-militaire appelée FPR (Front patriotique Rwandais) qui gère le pays comme une prison à ciel ouvert. Le FPR avec son armée APR (Armée Patriotique Rwandais) lutte avec acharnement (Inkotanyi) pour l’hégémonie des Tutsi (ou Banyamulenge ici, Bahima là et Nilotiques ou Hamites…) sur les autres groupes sociaux dont les Hutu (ou Bantous) en Afrique centrale. Parce que groupe social notoirement minoritaire dans la Région (pas même 1% de la population totale de la Région), pour arriver à son plan macabre de création de l’Empire Hima-Tutsi le FPR du Président Paul Kagame n’a que les guerres et la violence pour massacrer et déstabiliser les populations et piller toutes leurs richesses. A l’Est de la République Démocratique du Congo (RDC), le FPR/APR opère sous le sobriquet de M23, devenu tristement célèbre dans la Région.
[3] Les BRICS+ sont un groupe de dix pays qui se réunissent en sommets annuels : Brésil, Russie, Inde, Chine, Afrique du Sud, Arabie saoudite, Égypte, Émirats arabes unis, Éthiopie et Iran.
Initialement, le terme « BRIC » est un acronyme pour désigner quatre pays se regroupant à partir de 2009 : Brésil, Russie, Inde et Chine (en anglais : Brazil, Russia, India, China) ; le terme BRIC est forgé dès 2001 par un économiste de Goldman Sachs. En 2011, l'adhésion de l'Afrique du Sud (en anglais : South Africa) donne naissance à l'acronyme BRICS.
In 2024, with the membership of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, Ethiopia and Iran, the group becomes BRICS+.
The ten BRICS+ countries will represent in 2024 almost half of the world's population and 27% of the world's gross domestic product in nominal value, compared to 44% for the G7 countries.